My argument is that we cannot be absolutely certain about past and future events in the same way we can be absolutely certain about the laws of nature or logic.
And the Objectivist position is “yes we can”. I recommend “Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology”, if you are interested in the philosophical issues of knowledge and certainty.
Past event: I was born in 1979. I am absolutely 100% sure of that.
Future event: The sun will rise tomorrow morning. I am absolutely 100% sure of that.
Eyewitnesses can make mistakes, Lab technicians make errors, and occasionally overzealous law enforcement personnel plant evidence because they “feel” an individual is guilty.
On this last point, we can generalize your claim to reach the following conclusion – since one can imagine that some individual (law enforcement or otherwise) can always manufacture false evidence including fake forensic data and invented testimony, then it is impossible to have knowledge with certainty about any legally-relevant event. That is, we must be epistemological skeptics w.r.t. law.
My argument is that we cannot be absolutely certain about past and future events in the same way we can be absolutely certain about the laws of nature or logic.
Your rationale would in fact lead to the conclusion that you cannot be certain about laws of nature. The validation of any empirical claim requires some kind of observational proof, and you can always imagine that the evidence has been forged (in some cases such as AGW you can even prove it).
As for the idea of “being absolutely certain of the laws of logic”, I can’t imagine what you mean by that. I think you’re confusing the objective concept of a claim being certain with the subjective concept of a person being certain, and applying the latter concept to logic. If you’re hoping to apply the former, you should first enumerate “the laws of logic” and give the definition of “certainty”, where you will see that you’ve simply stated an arbitrary tautology.
And the Objectivist position is “yes we can”. I recommend “Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology”, if you are interested in the philosophical issues of knowledge and certainty.
Past event: I was born in 1979. I am absolutely 100% sure of that.
Future event: The sun will rise tomorrow morning. I am absolutely 100% sure of that.
I appreciate the recommendation and should add that I have no background in philosophy. Let me clarify again though, I am not saying one can be certain of no past or future events. I am skeptical that one can be absolutely certain of all past and future events. In other words, there exist some past and future events of which we cannot be 100% certain.
Past Event: I was born in 1981. I am absolutely certain of that. Can you be absolutely certain of that?
Future Event: I am 99.9999999% certain the sun will rise tomorrow as well. Unless I were in certain parts of Alaska:) I’m certainly banking on it. It’s definitely on the lowest of the low in order of probablity of non-occurence.
On this last point, we can generalize your claim to reach the following conclusion – since one can imagine that some individual (law enforcement or otherwise) can always manufacture false evidence including fake forensic data and invented testimony, then it is impossible to have knowledge with certainty about any legally-relevant event. That is, we must be epistemological skeptics w.r.t. law.Your rationale would in fact lead to the conclusion that you cannot be certain about laws of nature. The validation of any empirical claim requires some kind of observational proof, and you can always imagine that the evidence has been forged (in some cases such as AGW you can even prove it).
As for the idea of “being absolutely certain of the laws of logic”, I can’t imagine what you mean by that. I think you’re confusing the objective concept of a claim being certain with the subjective concept of a person being certain, and applying the latter concept to logic. If you’re hoping to apply the former, you should first enumerate “the laws of logic” and give the definition of “certainty”, where you will see that you’ve simply stated an arbitrary tautology.
Again, I must confess my lack of knowledge regarding philosophy. Maybe there is an easier way. Answer this for me. If I execute an convicted criminal who is innocent, is it a sacrifice? or have I committed an immoral act by initiating the use of force?
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence…er-murder-rates
Can it really be considered a deterrent if homicides are generally lower in states without the death penalty?
Can it really be considered a deterrent if homicides are generally lower in states without the death penalty?
Yes.
Yes.
In what way? Has there been evidence that it works as a deterrent?
In what way?
In what way is yes the answer to your question? Logically. “The death penalty isn’t a deterrent” is not the logical conclusion of that statistic you mentioned, so the death penalty could be a deterrent, even if your statistic is true.
Has there been evidence that it works as a deterrent?
Yes, thousands of years of human history, looking at how people behave, and even plain introspection, all tell me, without any doubt, that people usually prefer to avoid death and punishment in general: therefor punishment is a deterrent for crimes, and the greater the punishment, the greater the deterrent.
Can it really be considered a deterrent if homicides are generally lower in states without the death penalty?
From looking at the data, you ought to be able to see that there really is no credible correlation between having the death penalty in a state and the homicide rate. I suggest you look at the raw data more closely. Look at the causes of himicide rates instead.
In what way? Has there been evidence that it works as a deterrent?
The problem with measuring the deterence factor of any law is that a successful measurement requires you to know what did not happen, not what did happen. You can’t simply look at whether a state has the death penalty and has a higher or lower murder rate versus a state that doesn’t have one. You need to know how many murders didn’t happen that otherwise would have in the presence (or absence) of such law. I’ve never seen a statistic that captured that information.
From my own consideration, I don’t really care whether or not it is a deterence, I care whether or not it is a just and moral consequence (or punishment) for the crime committed. In my opinion, it is a just and moral consequence for some crimes. The issue is more of practicality in determining with certainty (not simply beyond a reasonable doubt) that the defendant committed the crime.
In what way is yes the answer to your question? Logically. “The death penalty isn’t a deterrent” is not the logical conclusion of that statistic you mentioned, so the death penalty could be a deterrent, even if your statistic is true.
Yes, thousands of years of human history, looking at how people behave, and even plain introspection, all tell me, without any doubt, that people usually prefer to avoid death and punishment in general: therefor punishment is a deterrent for crimes, and the greater the punishment, the greater the deterrent.
Perhaps I should rephrase: Is there evidence that the death penalty works as a better deterrent than life in prison?
Perhaps I should rephrase: Is there evidence that the death penalty works as a better deterrent than life in prison?
No. And life in prison is no deterrent either. And since there are no deterrents, therefore there should be no laws. (Now there is some foolproof logic!)
No. And life in prison is no deterrent either. And since there are no deterrents, therefore there should be no laws. (Now there is some foolproof logic!)
That’s not what I said. Challenging the deterrence in the death penalty =/= Implying lack of deterrence means that death penalty should be removed.
You’re looking for statistics to prove your theory, and you’re missing obvious evidence because of it. The threat of deadly force is the most common deterrent that’s ever been employed to prevent people from doing things, throughout history. In fact, it is the basic premise behind most acts of force. Claiming that people don’t prefer living to dying is claiming that armed robbery (or the use of guns to arrest people for that matter) is impossible.
That’s not what I said. Challenging the deterrence in the death penalty =/= Implying lack of deterrence means that death penalty should be removed.
That logic holds only if your premise is that the purpose of a death PENALTY is deterrence.
As I read it, the primary purpose is PENALTY.
Challenging the deterrence in the death penalty =/= Implying lack of deterrence means that death penalty should be removed.
Do you think that there is evidence that imprisonment deters theft, assault, fraud, or drug use & sale? If you want to cast doubt on the deterrence value of the death penalty, you need to establish that punishment does in general have a known and unquestionable deterrence value. That would give us a basis for saying that the death penalty in particular was actually counterproductive in terms of deterrence.
You don’t have a credible challenge to the death penalty deterrent, since your study failed to explain the change across time in the difference between death penalty states and non-death-penalty states. The statistics are completely meaningless because they failed to control the most elementary of variables. Note that DC, which has no death penalty, consistently has the highest murder rate, higher than the competitors by almost an order of magnitude. I see no reason to think that there is any significance, especially correlation with having a death penalty, to those figures.
And I am generously ignoring the fact that you’ve misidentified the function of punishment, as freestyle points out.
That’s not what I said. Challenging the deterrence in the death penalty =/= Implying lack of deterrence means that death penalty should be removed.
We agree then. Deterrence can be discarded as a factor. What remains? Penalty and punishment are related ideas yet to be defined in this thread.
We agree then. Deterrence can be discarded as a factor. What remains? Penalty and punishment are related ideas yet to be defined in this thread.
I think it’ll be fair to say that punishments are temporary and penalties are “permanent”